Hi, On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 I guess > > Please say if I've understood it correctly. By this proposal: > - wicket (from the 1.4 perspective) will be split into three modules, > wicket-core, wicket-util, wicket-request; > - a 'new' wicket.jar will be created to aggregate the three (well, > just like the 'old' wicket.jar), easing migration. > Correct. > > That would be nice. > > In maven projects, should we add 'wicket' or > 'wicket-core'+'wicket-util'+'wicket-request' as dependencies? If we > use 'wicket', will it add only one jar to WEB-INF/lib, or will it just > be a 'dependency alias', and the other three jars will be added as > transitive dependencies? > Your project will depend on 'wicket'. It is possible to depend on 'wicket-core' too and '-util' and '-request' will come as transitive deps. But as I said in my first mail we may consider to *not* deploy -core, -util and -request in official Maven repos. > > Tetsuo > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Juergen Donnerstag > <juergen.donners...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > > > Juergen > > > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> +1 to rename current wicket to wicket-core > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> +1 to rename current wicket into wicket-core > >>> > >>> -igor > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3261 I added a new > >>> Maven > >>> > module to 1.5: wicket-core. > >>> > Its purpose is to create a .jar that contains the classes from > >>> wicket.jar, > >>> > wicket-util.jar and wicket-request.jar (aka uberjar, jarjar, ...). > >>> > > >>> > We split wicket/ to three modules : wicket/, wicket-util and > >>> wicket-request > >>> > to make it more modular and easier to maintain, but now (non-Maven) > users > >>> > complain about class loading problems because they didn't add -util > and > >>> > -request in their classpath. > >>> > The purpose of the new module is to hide the fact that we split the > code > >>> > internally and tell all users to use the new uberjar. > >>> > We can even not publish the smaller ones in the Maven repos. > >>> > > >>> > The open question is: should we rename current wicket module to > >>> wicket-core > >>> > and the new module to become 'wicket' ? > >>> > Pros: > >>> > - all user apps will continue to have dependency to > >>> > org.apache.wicket:wicket > >>> > Cons: > >>> > - merging code from 1.4 to 1.5 can become a bit harder > >>> > > >>> > If we agree on that renaming of the modules then I need a date when > other > >>> > devs don't commit anything to do it. > >>> > > >>> > martin-g > >>> > > >>> > >> > > >
